Democrats’ Line of Attack on Gorsuch: No Friend of the Little Guy

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch last month in Washington. Democrats plan to argue that his rulings have favored the powerful and well connected.Credit
Doug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Corporate tool. Enemy of disabled people. Deferential to the privileged, including the man who chose him.

One week before Judge Neil M. Gorsuch is to sit for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats have zeroed in on their most prominent planned line of attack: Judge Gorsuch’s rulings have favored the powerful and well connected. And he has done little, they will say, to demonstrate independence from a president whose combative relationship with the judiciary has already clouded the nominating process.

The strategy includes two events this week aimed at emphasizing Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights and big money in politics — an attempt to break through the din in President Trump’s Washington, where the nomination fight so far has been largely overshadowed by administration infighting, Russia-tinged scandals and legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

The Democrats’ approach also appears to be in keeping with the preference of some lawmakers to make the nomination as much a referendum on Mr. Trump as Judge Gorsuch, with ready parallels to the president’s history as a profit-seeking boss and serial litigant.

As a consequence, though, the kinds of social issues that often animate Supreme Court confirmation hearings, like abortion rights and same-sex marriage, may not be the primary focus for Democrats seeking to raise doubts about Judge Gorsuch.

“Obviously, the social issues are always looming out there with any justice,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “But where he’s particularly vulnerable is in this antiworker, pro-corporate record. And second, he cannot really cite examples of him being independent other than saying, ‘Ask people.’”

(In meetings with Democratic senators, Judge Gorsuch called such attacks on judges “disheartening” but declined to speak publicly, even as the White House suggested Judge Gorsuch had not taken issue with anything Mr. Trump said.)

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, last week in Washington.Credit
Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

But after weeks spent poring over his rulings, their attention in the coming days will be trained largely on Judge Gorsuch’s paper trail on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Democrats are expected to point out several instances they say highlight his tendency to side against the little guy. In one case, Judge Gorsuch argued in a dissent that a company was permitted to fire a truck driver for abandoning his cargo for his own safety in subzero temperatures.

In another, he ruled against a family seeking reimbursement under a federal disabilities law for the cost of sending a child with severe autism to a specialized school. Then there was the professor who lost her job after taking time off to recover from cancer: Judge Gorsuch denied her federal discrimination claim, saying that while the predicament was “in no way of her own making,” it was “a problem other forms of social security aim to address.”

“You can find example after example of Judge Gorsuch siding against workers even in the most dire circumstances,” Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 ranking Senate Democrat, said last week at an event with union and disability rights representatives.

Judge Gorsuch’s defenders have accused Democrats of cherry-picking, arguing that his adherence to the law does not suggest a lack of compassion. In the case of the professor, for instance, the decision was unanimous and joined by a nominee of President Bill Clinton.

Former clerks to Judge Gorsuch have cited other cases in which he sided with workers on issues including sexual harassment claims and black-lung benefits for retired miners.

Carrie Severino, the chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, a group pushing for Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation, called the Democrats’ criticisms “an absurd overgeneralization.”

Skeptics of Judge Gorsuch have been unmoved. On Tuesday, Democrats on Capitol Hill have planned an event focused on Judge Gorsuch’s record on campaign finance laws, suggesting that he would continue the rightward movement of the court in this area.

And on Wednesday, Mr. Schumer is expected to host people who have been negatively affected by Judge Gorsuch’s decisions in a bid to demonstrate the practical implications of his rulings.

“There’s a whole pattern,” Mr. Schumer said. “He sort of expresses sympathetic words in many of these cases, but then his decision is coldly — he would say pragmatic, we would say coldly — on the side of the big interests.”

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Mr. Gorsuch’s views on social issues will surely retain a conspicuous place at his hearings. One of his best-known rulings was a vote in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., which objected to regulations under the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide free contraception coverage.

But other cases may offer Democrats a more powerful populist message as they press Judge Gorsuch — and, if they choose, at least a handful of opportunities to link the nominee to a president with a history of punching down. During the campaign, Mr. Trump was criticized for failing to pay contractors at his buildings, misleading students at Trump University and mocking a reporter with a physical disability.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said a central question of the hearings would be whether Judge Gorsuch passes the “Trump litmus test” laid out during the campaign, when Mr. Trump pledged to nominate a judge with traditionally conservative credentials on issues like abortion and gun rights.

“It’s a fascinating process because clearly he has strengths in intellect and articulateness that make him an appealing candidate,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “But — and it’s a big ‘but’ — what are his core beliefs?”

Breaking a possible Democratic filibuster against the nomination would require eight members of the Democratic caucus to join the 52-member Republican majority. Otherwise, Republicans could change longstanding rules and push through the nomination on a simple majority vote — the so-called nuclear option, which Mr. Trump has encouraged Republicans to embrace if necessary.

Several Democrats have already said they will vote against Judge Gorsuch, raising pressure from the party’s progressive base for others to join. Many Democratic senators remain furious at the treatment last year of Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, whom Republicans refused to consider.

Last week, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who engineered the Republicans’ Supreme Court gambit in an election year, preached civility at the Capitol, asking Democrats to give Judge Gorsuch due deference.

“I hope colleagues on both sides will show him the fair consideration he deserves,” Mr. McConnell said, “the same fair consideration we showed to all four of the Supreme Court nominees of Presidents Obama and Clinton after they were first elected — a respectful hearing followed by an up-or-down vote.”

A version of this article appears in print on March 14, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Democrats Move to Cast Justice Nominee as Enemy of the Little Guy. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe